Abbott v. Donovan

• Decision Date: 11 October 1984
• Docket Number: Court No. 81-1-00028.
• Citation: 8 CIT 237,596 F. Supp. 472
• Parties: R.E. ABBOTT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Raymond J. DONOVAN, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. Court of International Trade

596 F. Supp. 472

8 CIT 237

R.E. ABBOTT, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Raymond J. DONOVAN, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Defendant.

Court No. 81-1-00028.

United States Court of International Trade.

October 11, 1984.

Bruce M. Frey, Marion, Ind., for plaintiffs.

Richard K. Willard, Acting Asst. Atty. Gen., David M. Cohen, Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Washington, D.C. (Sheila N. Ziff, Washington, D.C., on brief), for defendant.

RE, Chief Judge:

Plaintiffs, on behalf of the former employees at the Dana Corporation's Marion, Indiana plant (Marion plant), challenge a determination of the Secretary of Labor denying certification of eligibility for trade adjustment assistance benefits under the Trade Act of 1974. 19 U.S.C. §§ 2101-2487 (1982).

The Secretary's denial is part of a multiple determination on the petition for certification filed by the Marion plant employees, in which only the employees in Departments 225 and 230, the departments that produced journal crosses and bearing races, were certified. Abbott v. Donovan, 6 CIT ___, 570 F.Supp. 41, 43, 44 (1983), (Abbott I), and Abbott v. Donovan, 7 CIT ___, 588 F.Supp. 1438 at 1439 (1984), (Abbott II). The Secretary denied certification to the remaining production workers at the plant, and to the service workers, who provided ancillary and support services to the various production departments, because they failed to satisfy the requirements set out in section 222(3) of the Trade Act of 1974, 19 U.S.C. § 2272(3) (1982). Abbott II 588 F.Supp. at 1439. Having been twice remanded, this action is before the Court for the third time.

The background of this action is detailed in Abbott I and Abbott II, and need not be restated. After careful review in Abbott I, this Court affirmed the Secretary's determination denying certification to production workers other than those in Departments 225 and 230. The court agreed with the Secretary that "only those production workers in Departments 225 and 230 were adversely affected by increased imports of like or directly competitive articles, as contemplated by section 222(3) of the Act." 570 F.Supp. at 43.

In Abbott I, the Secretary found that increased imports did not "contribute importantly" to the service workers separation from employment. The court remanded to the Secretary that part of the action relating to the service workers because his determination had not been "supported by any substantial evidence." 570 F.Supp. at 51. In addition, the court noted that the imposition of the Secretary's 25% standard would only be valid if the activities of the service workers were evenly distributed throughout the plant, and provided that some production departments were not more "service intensive" than others. The Secretary was instructed to take these factors into account when making his redetermination.

Pursuant to the court's order in Abbott I, the Secretary conducted a further investigation of the service workers at the Marion plant, and submitted his redetermination to the court. The Secretary also submitted a supplemental administrative record. In his redetermination, once again, the Secretary concluded that increased imports did not contribute importantly to the service workers' separation from employment. 48 Fed. Reg. 48876, 48877 (1983).

The Secretary based this second denial of certification on new data which compared the relationship of hours worked by the employees of the twenty-five service departments to production Departments 225 and 230. The data revealed an uneven distribution of support services between Departments 225 and 230. The data, however, did not reveal the relationship of the service departments to the remaining production departments. Nor did the Secretary submit evidence showing that he considered the possibility that some production departments could be more service intensive than others.

Thus, in Abbott II, the court concluded that the denial of certification was still not supported by substantial evidence, and the action was again remanded to the Secretary. The court instructed the Secretary to produce comparative data showing the relationship of the activities of the service workers in the various service departments to all production departments, to determine which production departments, if any, were more service intensive than others.

Pursuant to the court's order in Abbott II, the Secretary has filed his latest determination, which reaffirms the two prior determinations, denying certification of eligibility for trade adjustment assistance benefits to the service workers at the Marion plant. Plaintiffs again contest the Secretary's determination, contending that the administrative record establishes the existence of an "important causal nexus" between increased imports of journal crosses and bearing races, and their separation from employment.

This Court is empowered to review a decision by the Secretary of Labor which denies certification of eligibility for trade adjustment assistance benefits to assure that the Secretary's determination is in accordance with law, and is supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. Trade Act of 1974, § 284, 19 U.S.C. § 2395(b) (1982). Legislative enactments are seldom, if ever, neutral. They either promote or foster certain activities, policies or goals, or discourage or frustrate others. The pertinent statute which governs this case, The Trade Act of 1974, is no exception. Although fully cognizant of the benefactory animating purpose of the legislation, the court must nevertheless give effect to the plain language of the statute.

Pursuant to section 222 of the Act, in order to certify plaintiffs as eligible for trade adjustment assistance benefits, the Secretary of Labor's investigation must disclose:

(1) that a significant number or proportion of the workers in such workers' firms or an appropriate subdivision of the firm have become totally or partially separated, or are threatened to become totally or partially separated,

(2) that sales or production, or both, of such firm or subdivision have decreased absolutely, and

(3) that increases of imports of articles like or directly competitive with articles produced by such workers' firm or an appropriate subdivision thereof contributed importantly to such total or partial separation, or threat thereof, and to such decline in sales or production.

19 U.S.C. § 2371(c) (emphasis added).

If any one of these three statutory conditions does not exist, the Secretary must deny certification.

Neither section 222, nor any other section of the adjustment assistance provisions of the Trade Act of 1974 expressly mentions service workers. The accompanying legislative history is similarly silent. Hence, the court must accord some deference to the interpretation of the statute by the agency charged with its administration. Woodrum v. Donovan, 5 CIT ___, 564 F.Supp. 826, 829 (1983), aff'd, 737 F.2d 1575...